It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics? Don't have an answer to my hypothetical question?
President Bush did none of these things on that morning. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend that as a normal response.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by magicrat
President Bush did none of these things on that morning. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend that as a normal response.
No, he did none of those things while briefly on camera at a public event that included small children. 7 minutes. 480 seconds. As much as I realize that many folks here on ATS do not like President Bush he did the right thing in not appearing to panic in public. Its not like he personally was going to go outside and man a ground to air missile station.
That's exactly it - he knew that a plane had crashed before entering the classroom, and he was told "A second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack." So how is it defensible for the Commander in Chief, the leader of America in a metaphoric and practical sense, to sit there for seven minutes looking like he's got no idea about the seriousness of the event?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by hooper
As it is he looks like he's got no idea about the seriousness of the event.
Originally posted by magicrat
That's exactly it - he knew that a plane had crashed before entering the classroom, and he was told "A second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack." So how is it defensible for the Commander in Chief, the leader of America in a metaphoric and practical sense, to sit there for seven minutes looking like he's got no idea about the seriousness of the event?
Regardless of what he could actually accomplish by politely excusing himself and getting to work (jumping up and gravely sermonizing is a bizarre option for him to choose but okay, I guess he could have done that), that's clearly a better choice than sitting there doing nothing.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's not. He's clearly out of his depth. That's why he and his cronies spend their time avoiding telling the US public about how bad their intelligence was. That's the cover up.
The thread surmises (or at least implies) that there is something odd about his actions that might suggest a conspiracy. But nobody who follows that line of thinking can adequately explain why conspirators would put him on camera with the intention of making him look like he was involved. The best answer so far has been that it was a mistake. I don't find this persuasive.
Originally posted by magicrat
Okay, I can imagine that. I think in the big picture the cover up points to something deeper, but I agree he's out of his depth, and I agree that pride can make us cover up our inefficiencies in pretty extreme ways. So I'll agree that's a possible scenario.
Fair enough. I don't find that answer persuasive either, though it's definitely possible. I can imagine other answers (he's not involved and They wanted to keep an eye on him; he's involved and They're performing a ritual of some kind that's more effective if it's public; he's involved and They think it works as an alibi for some reason; he's not involved and They wanted to send him a message...), but I don't mind spending time deep in the rabbit hole while imagining. You seem to be not so comfortable there, and that's cool.
But what I keep coming back to is that we can't find any proof by imaging the motivations of people we don't know and don't understand. We can only consider evidence, and the video evidence of President Bush on that morning is pretty weird and warrants consideration, in my opinion.
The question to ask is why did they let him stay? For the sake of the children seems rather crazy, as I can't imagine the Secret Service handbook says "get the President out of any dangerous situation, unless kids are involved in which case leave him alone."
Interesting point about not knowing the nature of the threat. There is a minor problem with your contention. Bush claimed that he saw the second plane hit, live, and could not believe what a bad pilot he was. So the knew something, at least according to what he said. The other problem with the contention is that the VP was said to have been whisked away immediately, I don't recall reading where he sat for a few hours to figure things out. So the VP was underground in moments, the actual presiding president was not. It is also assumed a plan of retreat was in place if there was some sort of attack, which wasn't executed.
As for the children, the mall analogy isn't completely accurate either. Those to protect are trained to protect on instinct only - no thinking.
If the "leader of the free world" is in danger, he has to move, regardless of who is around - at least that is what we are told.
The protection of the leader is not comparable to any other act of protection, as there are folks trained for all events and a mall incident is happen-chance to those involved, instinct training isn't part of the equation.
Regardless, the President's trip to the school, on the day of the "greatest attack on US soil since pearl harbor" was remarkably leisurely and since that wasn't part of a nationwide broadcast - a good reason for looking calm and reserved, we might assume he knew about nature of the attack not being a threat to him personally, or more likely, was told nothing at all. Which of course contradicts his statement that he knew about the attack - live, in which case the calm seems very out of place and the Secret Service NOT rushing in to shield him seems negligent at best.
Originally posted by crankyoldman
reply to post by hooper
Bush claimed that he saw the second plane hit, live, and could not believe what a bad pilot he was. So the knew something, at least according to what he said.
Your point still stands in my mind - he was definitely aware of the magnitude of the threat, especially once Card told him "America is under attack," and he was unaware of the exact nature of the attack - making it really weird to me that neither he nor the Secret Service saw a need to move him from a public location that could not possibly have been considered safe given the circumstances.
Please note that they did move him away and within a few minutes. Reading this one would think that he lingered in that classroom for hours....he didn't.
Moving the President around in public, particularly during an emergency of unknown proportions, and I want to emphasize that they did not know, at that time, the full extent and direction of the threat. The President was safe where he was. There was nothing threatening the school at that time. The safest place for the POTUS when he is "on the road" is generally Air Force One, however on 9/11/2001 the only thing they did know about the threat, at that time, was that it was airborne.
So do you rush the President out of school and into the open and put him on a plane when the threat may be coming from above?